Transradial and Transfemoral Approach in Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Contemporary coronary artery bypass graft surgery and subsequent percutaneous revascularization

Patients who have undergone coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are susceptible to bypass graft failure and progression of native coronary artery disease. Although the saphenous vein graft (SVG) was traditionally the most-used conduit, arterial grafts (including the left and right internal thoracic arteries and the radial artery) have improved patency rates. However, the need for secondary revascularization remains common, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the most common modality of secondary revascularization after CABG surgery. Procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes differ considerably from those associated with PCI in patients without previous CABG surgery, owing to altered coronary anatomy and differences in conduit pathophysiology. In particular, SVG PCI carries an increased risk of complications, and operators are shifting their focus towards embolic protection strategies and complex native-vessel interventions, increasingly using SVGs as conduits to facilitate native-vessel PCI rather than pursuing SVG PCI. In this Review, we discuss the differences in conduit pathophysiology, changes in CABG surgery techniques, and the latest evidence in terms of PCI in patients with previous CABG surgery, with a particular emphasis on safety and long-term efficacy. We explore the subject of contemporary CABG surgery and subsequent percutaneous revascularization in this complex patient population.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with coronary artery bypass surgery: Frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal access site for cardiac catheterization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) continues to be debated.

METHODS

We performed a random effects frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of 4 randomized trials and 18 observational studies, including 60,192 patients with prior CABG (27,236 in the radial group; 32,956 in the femoral group) that underwent cardiac catheterization. Outcomes included (1) access-site complications, (2) crossover to a different vascular access, (3) procedure time, and (4) contrast volume. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for binary outcomes.

RESULTS

Among randomized trials, crossover (OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 2.04, 28.51; p = 0.003) was higher in the radial group, while access site complications (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.34, 2.87; p = 0.94) and contrast volume (MD: 15.08; 95% CI: -10.19, 40.35; p = 0.24) were similar. Among observational studies, crossover rates were higher (OR: 5.09; 95% CI: 2.43, 10.65; p < 0.001), while access site complication rates (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.89; p = 0.02) and contrast volume (MD: -7.52; 95% CI: -13.14, -1.90 ml; p = 0.009) were lower in the radial group. Bayesian analysis suggested that the odds of a difference existing between radial and femoral are small for all endpoints except crossover to another access site.

CONCLUSION

In a frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of patients with prior CABG undergoing coronary catheterization, radial access was associated with lower incidence of vascular access complications and lower contrast volume but also higher crossover rate.